Romeo v. Romeo

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Romeo v. Romeo

39 A.D.2d 559, 331 N.Y.S.2d 870, 1972 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5007

CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York

DecidedApril 10, 1972

StatusPublished

Cited by5 cases

This text of 39 A.D.2d 559 (Romeo v. Romeo) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Romeo v. Romeo, 39 A.D.2d 559, 331 N.Y.S.2d 870, 1972 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5007 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1972).

Pincite

Opinion

In a matrimonial action, plaintiff husband appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Nassau County, dated March 14, 1971, which denied his motion to vacate a decree of separation, to reinstate his action for annulment, and to modify support provisions. Order affirmed, with $10 costs and disbursements. The judgment of separation is res judicata as to the validity of the marriage [560]*560(Statter v. Statter, 2 N Y 2d 668; Psaroudis v. Psaroudis, 27 N Y 2d 527). As plaintiff’s allegations do not fall into the category of newly discovered evidence, it would have been improper to reopen issues inherently decided in the action two years before (Matter of Wareham v. Wareham, 34 A D 2d 647). Rabin, P. J., Hopkins, Martuseello, Latham and Shapiro, JJ., concur.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

In a matrimonial action, plaintiff husband appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Nassau County, dated March 14, 1971, which denied his motion to vacate a decree of separation, to reinstate his action for annulment, and to modify support provisions. Order affirmed, with $10 costs and disbursements. The judgment of separation is res judicata as to the validity of the marriage [560]*560(Statter v. Statter, 2 N Y 2d 668; Psaroudis v. Psaroudis, 27 N Y 2d 527). As plaintiff’s allegations do not fall into the category of newly discovered evidence, it would have been improper to reopen issues inherently decided in the action two years before (Matter of Wareham v. Wareham, 34 A D 2d 647). Rabin, P. J., Hopkins, Martuseello, Latham and Shapiro, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

39 A.D.2d 559, 331 N.Y.S.2d 870, 1972 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5007, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/romeo-v-romeo-nyappdiv-1972.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack